Ignacio vs.

Court of Appeals
246 SCRA 242
FACTS: On December 24, 1987, petitioner, in consideration of P1,000,000.00,
purchased
under a pacto de retro contract from private respondents a house and lot of 624 square
meters located at No. 13 Narra Street, Valle Verde III, Pasig, Metro Manila.
The agreement was evidenced by a public instrument entitled "Deed of Sale
Under Pacto de Retro" executed and duly signed by petitioner and respondent.
Therein,
the parties agreed that private respondents be granted the right to repurchase the
property
5

sold within 90 days from December 24, 1987, for the same consideration of
P1,000,000.00 plus 5% interest thereon.
Private respondents failed to repurchase the property within the 90-day period
despite an extension of five days granted them.
Private respondents filed a Manifestation admitting the execution of the "Deed of
Sale under Pacto de Retro." They claimed, however, that the parties only intended to
enter into an equitable mortgage to secure prompt payment of the loan given them by
petitioner. They alleged that the interest rate of the loan was "unconscionable,
excessive
and unreasonable" and that notwithstanding the sale, they had remained in actual
possession of the property.
Private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals raising the issue of lack of
jurisdiction of the land registration court over the case.
On March 4, 1991, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and reversed the
decision of the trial court. The appellate court declared that the Regional Trial Court
sitting as a land registration court had no jurisdiction over the petition for
consolidation
of title, which is an ordinary civil action pursuant to Article 1607 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the said case
RULING: In the instant case, the trial court, although sitting as a land registration
court,
took cognizance of the petition as an ordinary civil action under its general
jurisdiction.
The court did not decide the case summarily, but afforded both petitioner and private
respondents the opportunity to present their respective documentary and testimonial
evidence. Ordinary pleadings and memoranda were likewise filed. The decision of the
trial court squarely addressed all the issues raised by the parties and applied
substantive
law and jurisprudence.
Reviewing the records, we agree with the trial court that the "Deed of Sale Under
Pacto de Retro" cannot be considered as an equitable mortgage. The mere fact that the
price in a pacto de retro sale is not the true value of the property does not justify the
conclusion that the contract is one of equitable mortgage. In a pacto de retro sale, the
practice is to fix a relatively reduced price to afford the vendor a retro every facility to
redeem the property.
Heirs of Clemente Ermac vs. Heirs of Vicente Ermac
G.R. No. 149679 May 30, 2003

FACTS: The subject lot of this case is Lot No. 666 situated in Mandaue City, Cebu.
The
subject lot was originally owned by Claudio Ermac. Upon his death, the lot was
inherited
by his three children, namely: Esteban, Pedro and Balbina. Siblings Pedro and
Balbina
requested their brother Esteban to have their title to the property registered. Esteban,
however, was unable to do so, and the task of registration fell to his son, Clemente.
Clemente applied for registration of the title, but did so in his own name, and did not
include his fathers brother and sister, nor his cousins. Despite having registered the
lot in
his name, Clemente did not disturb or claim ownership over those portions occupied
by
his uncle, aunt and cousins even up to the time of his death.
Respondent herein are among the occupants of Lot No. 666. They respectively
alleged that they inherited the land from their predecessors. Other respondents
contend
that they acquired rights over the land by purchase from the children of Claudio
Ermac.
Respondents ownership and possession had been peaceful and undisturbed, until the
heirs
of Clemente Ermac filed an action for ejectment against them. This prompted
respondents to file an action for quieting of title against petitioners. To support their
claim to the land, respondents presented tax declaration and realty tax receipts
covering
the portions of the subject lot they possessed.
In reply to the action for quieting of title, petitioners contend that the real owner
of the land was not Claudio Ermac, but their father Clemente Ermac. They also
contend
that they possessed the land in the concept of owners, and that respondents
possession of
some portions of the subject property was merely tolerated by their father Clemente
Ermac.
The trial court ruled for respondents. It found that the original owner of the
subject lot was Claudio Ermac, and therefore upon his death, it was inherited by his
three
children. All the heirs therefore of Claudio Ermac, should share in the ownership of
Lot
No. 666, by right of succession. It also held that since the entire lot was now
registered
under the name of Clemente Ermac, the shares of the other heirs, some of which have
already been purchased by some of the respondents, are being held in trust by the
petitioners in favor of their actual occupants.
10

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the
trial court. It even added that the fact that petitioners have in their possession
certificates
of title which apparently bear out that it was Clemente Ermac alone who claimed the
entire property described therein has no discrediting effect upon respondents claim, it
appearing that such title was acquired in derogation of the existing valid and adverse

interests of the respondents whose title by succession was effectively disregarded.

On appeal now to the Supreme Court, petitioners, in the main, contend that the
title acquired by Clemente is indefeasible and incontrovertible under the Torrens
system
after the lapse of one year from registration; that respondents action has already
prescribed; and that the court a quo erred in relying to the tax declarations and realty
tax
receipts presented by respondents to support their claims to the subject lot.
ISSUES:
W/N the certificate of title acquired by Clemente Ermac is indefeasible and
incontrovertible under the Torrens system NO, under the facts and
circumstances of this case
W/N the court a quo erred in relying on the tax declarations and realty tax receipts
presented by respondents NO, under the facts and circumstances of this case
W/N the action for quieting of title filed by respondents had already prescribed
NO
RULING:
1. While it is true that Section 32 of PD 1529 (Property Registration Decree)
provides that the decree of registration becomes incontrovertible after a year, it
does not altogether deprive an aggrieved party of a remedy in law. The
acceptability of the Torrens System would be impaired, if it is utilized to
perpetuate fraud against the real owners.
2. Ownership is not the same as a certificate of title. Registering a piece of land
under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, because registration is not a
mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an evidence of
ownership or title over the particular property described therein. Its issuance in
favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property
may be co-owned with persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held
in trust for another person by the registered owner.
3. While tax declarations and realty tax receipts do not conclusively prove
ownership, they may constitute strong evidence of ownership when accompanied
by possession for a period sufficient for prescription. Considering that
respondents have been in possession of the property for a long period of time,
there is legal basis for their use of tax declarations and realty tax receipts as
additional evidence to support their claim of ownership.
4. As to the issue of prescription, since Claudio Ermac has already been established
as the original owner of the land, the registration in the name of Clemente Ermac
meant that the latter held the land in trust for all the heirs of the former. Since
respondents were in actual possession of the property, the action to enforce the
trust, and recover the property, and thereby quiet title thereto, does not prescribe.
Divina vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 117734 February 22, 2001
FACTS: The subject lot of this case is a portion of Lot 1893 situated in Gubat,
Sorsogon.
It appears that Lot 1398 was owned by Teotimo Berosa. In 1961, the Berosa spouses
sold
Lot 1893 to Jose Gamos, who was the owner of Lot 1466, by purchase, adjoining Lot
1893. He thereafter consolidated his ownership over the two lots and declared it for
taxation purposes.

In 1967, Teotimo Berosa conveyed to Vicente Divina a portion of Lot 1893

known as Lot 1893-B. The sale was registered, and an undated subdivision plan,
without
Bureau of Lands approval, was prepared for petitioner.
In 1970, Gamos conveyed the consolidated property (Lots 1466 and 1893) to
private respondent Vilma Gajo-Sy. She declared the land for taxation purposes. In
1972,
she filed an application for registration of title to the property. The land registration
court
ordered the registration of private respondents titles over the consolidated property.
Pending the issuance of the decree of registration, petitioner filed a Petition for
Review of the judgment. He alleged that he is the owner of a portion of Lot 1893, and
that he was unaware of any land registration proceedings affecting Lot 1893 due to
private respondents failure to give him notice. He claimed that private respondent
fraudulently misrepresented herself as the owner of the disputed portion despite her
knowledge that another person had acquired the same. He made an issue out of the
fact
that petitioners cousin informed private respondent before her application for
registration
of her (cousin) apprehension of their (petitioner and cousin) land being included in
respondents application for registration; that despite this information of
apprehension,
private respondents still failed to give them due notice.
The land registration court set aside the order of issuance of decree of registration.
This decision was reversed by the appellate court on appeal. Hence, the petition.
25

ISSUE: W/N there was deliberate misrepresentation consisting actual fraud on the part
of
private respondent when she failed to give notice to petitioner of her application for
registration of the disputed property YES
RULING: Section 15 of PD 1529 is explicit in requiring that in the application for
registration of land titles, the application shall so state the full names and addresses
of
all occupants of the land and those of the adjoining owners, if known, and if not
known, it
shall state the extent of the search made to find them. In one case, it was held that a
mere statement of the lack of knowledge of the names of the occupants and adjoining
owners is not sufficient but what search has been made to find them is necessary.
The trial court was correct when it took notice that respondents sister had
admitted that she had a conversation with petitioners cousin about the latters
apprehension that their land may have been included in respondents application for
registration of the disputed land. Respondents omission of this material fact
prevented
petitioner from having his day in court. Indeed, it is fraud to knowingly omit or
conceal a
fact upon which benefit is obtained to the prejudice of a third person. Such omission
cannot but be a deliberate misrepresentation constituting fraud, a basis for allowing a
petition for review of judgment under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act (Act.
No.
496).

Application covering two or more parcels

An application may include two or more parcels of land belonging to applicant/s
provided they are situated within the same province or city. The court may at any time
order an application to be amended by striking out one or more of the parcels or by a
severance of the application (Section 18 of PD 1529).
In case there be several parcels of land situated in different provinces and
belonging to one owner, the application for registration shall be made in each of the
corresponding Regional Trial Courts of the province where the different parcels of
land
are located.
When the land lies partly in one province and partly in another and the boundary
between the two provinces has not yet been definitely established by means of survey,
and said land has been declared for taxation purposes by the owner in one province,
the
surveyor necessarily makes it appear in the plan of the property that the land is
located in
the province where it is recorded for taxation purposes. Under such circumstances, the
application shall be filed in said province. If the boundary between the two provinces
is
already definitely established by survey, the surveyor has to make a plan for the
portion
of the land lying in one province and another plan for the other portion lying in the
other
province, in which case an application should be filed for each lot in the province
where
it lies.
Supporting documents and annexes
The application for registration must be presented in triplicate to the clerk of
Regional Trial Court of the city or province where the land is situated. It must be
accompanied by (1) the original plan of the land signed by the surveyor and duly
26

approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands together with two photographic or
blue
print copied of the plan; (2) three (3) copies of the technical description; (3) a
tracingcloth
plan; (4) three copies of the certificate of the surveyor which is in conformity with
Section 1859 of the Administrative Code; (5) a certificate in quadruplicate of the
Provincial Treasurer of the assessed value of the land at its last assessment for
taxation,
or in the absence thereof, that of the next preceding year; (6) and in case the land has
not
been assessed, an affidavit in quadruplicate (Judicial Form No. 81) of the market
value of
the land signed by three disinterested persons; (7) and all original muniments of title
in
the possession of the applicant which prove his ownership of the land (Regulations in
Ordinary Land Registration Cases).
By muniments, we refer to instruments or written evidences which the applicant
holds or possesses to enable him to substantiate and prove his title to his estate.
Section

17 of PD 1529 requires beside a survey plan of the land approved by the Bureau of
lands,
all original muniments of title or copies thereof. Considering, however, the danger of
losing the original of such valuable evidence of title, the requirement of filing them
with
the application is not mandatory so long as they can be produced before the court
during
the hearing whenever required or necessary.
Power of the Court to require additional documents
Under Section 21 of PD 1529, the court is not bound to require only such facts as
are prescribed by the Land Registration Act. It may, by general rule, require facts to
be
stated in the application in addition thereto, and not inconsistent therewith, and may
even
require the presentation of additional papers.
Amendments to Application
Section 18 of PD 1529 allows the court, at any time, to order an applicant to be
amended by striking out one or more of the parcels of land applied for or by a
severance
of the application.
Section 19 of the Decree specifically states:
Amendments to the application including joinder, substitution, or discontinuance
as to parties may be allowed by the court at any stage of the proceedings upon just and
reasonable terms.
Amendments which shall consist in a substantial change in the boundaries or an
increase in area of the land applied for or which involve the inclusion of an additional
land shall be subject to the same requirements of publication and notice as in an original
application.

Under the law, there is a need to comply with the required publication and notice
if the amendment of the application and notice if the amendment of the application
consists in:
a substantial change in the boundaries;
an increase in the area of the land applied for; or
the inclusion of an additional land.
27

An amendment due to change of name of the does not require publication.

Amendments to application may be due to change in parties or substantial change in
the
boundaries or increase in the area of the land applied for. On the other hand,
republication is required if the amendment is due to substantial change in the
boundaries
in the area of the land applied for.
It is the publication of specific boundaries of land to be registered that would
actually put the interested parties on notice of registration proceedings and enable
them,
if they have rights or interests in the property, to show why the application for
registration should not be granted. In the case of Director of Lands, et al. vs. Benitez,
et
al., 16 SCRA 557 citing Philippine Manufacturing Co. vs. Imperial, 49 Phil. 122, the
Supreme Court also held that a Court order amending the official plan so as to include
a

land not previously included therein is a nullity unless new application is made as a
preliminary to such step. An additional territory cannot be included by amendment of
the
plan without new publication.
May the land be subject of any dealings, e.g. Sale, pending registration?
After the filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree of
registration, the land therein described may still be the subject of dealings in whole or
in
part, in which case the interested party shall present to the court the pertinent
instruments
together with a subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands in case of transfer
of
portions thereof, and the court, after notice to the parties, shall order such land
registered
subject to the conveyances or encumbrances created by said instruments, or order that
the
decree of registration be issued in the name of the person to whom the property has
been
conveyed by said instruments (Section 22, PD 1529).
In the case of Mendoza vs CA, et al., 84 SCRA 67 [1978], the Supreme Court
said:
The law does not require that the application for registration be amended by substituting
the buyer or the person to whom the property has been conveyed for the applicant.
Neither does it require that the buyer or the person to whom the property has been
conveyed be a party to the case. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration
proceedings. The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to
the court by the interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in
relation with the application; (2) that prior notice be given to the parties of the case.